What's wrong with that? We have a republic precisely so that wiser folks can make decisions for the dumbasses in our public. They can't totaly ignore the folks but they can and should absolutely ignore them at times

What's wrong with that? We have a republic precisely so that wiser folks can make decisions for the dumbasses in our public. They can't totaly ignore the folks but they can and should absolutely ignore them at times

To a degree, but this decision on Kavanaugh by the left lacks any proof or logic... She did it only because she was going to lose anyway and will look to land a TV or Dem gig in 2019. She could never officially move back to ND... She's to good for that now. See Tom Harkin...

__________________
Anyone ever wonder why Jim Hammer, who joined a football message board, only posts in DC and has never posted in the Lounge. Mult?

What's wrong with that? We have a republic precisely so that wiser folks can make decisions for the dumbasses in our public. They can't totaly ignore the folks but they can and should absolutely ignore them at times

Agreed.

I'm a firm believer in the Trustee Model over the mere Delegate Model. I don't think there's anything wrong with her doing what she did despite the will of her constituency; her job isn't to just mirror polling data.

But the problem isn't that he disregarded the will of her constituency - it's the she simply made a stupid decision for a stupid reason.

But ultimately it doesn't matter - she was dead already and knew it when she made the vote. The vote was exclusively to set her up for her next gig.

]If the Democrats control the Senate they can pretty much do whatever they want.[/B] This is what Brian Fallon has overtly said is the real plan with Kavanaugh.

It’s not what the framers had in mind and Democrats may pay a price at the polls (which is the brilliance of our system), but ultimately they can play the same game the GOP started.

I actually think the “Garland Gambit” you lay out here would be pretty effective though — although I doubt he would be Democrats first choice because of his age his confirmation would undoubtedly provide a certain satisfaction I’m sure.

That said, given how Trump plays to the base, he’d never do it. It would be up to the voters to be okay with it or not and decide to pressure Dems or not.

So when the republicans control the Senate, why hasn't anything happened? I mean, they act like they CAN'T get anything done.....

So when the republicans control the Senate, why hasn't anything happened? I mean, they act like they CAN'T get anything done.....

For many things, you need a filibuster proof majority, and they don't have that.
For other things, you need to pretty much keep every member, because the margin is so thin, and you've got a decent number of Rinos on one side demanding things that are unacceptable to the more legitimate rightists on the other side, and vice versa. We just saw Murkowski go off the reservation and give us a good example of the problem.

More Senators will mean more things pass, but they'll likely still be stuck dealing with the filibuster, because it doesn't look as if they'll grab enough seats to make that a non-issue.

"He had no teeth, and he was slobbering all over himself. I'm thinking, 'You can have your money back, just get me out of here. Let me go be an accountant." I can't tell you how badly I wanted out of there."Denver rookie QB John Elway, on Jack Lambert, after Lambert and the Steelers knocked Elway out of his first game as a pro (1983).